Recognizing lead as a health threat: Editorial

Lead poisoning is a serious threat to the health and development of young children, and new, stricter federal standards for exposure reflect the gravity of the problem. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lowered the recommended limit for exposure for the first time in 20 years, cutting it by half, and that's a needed change. Christopher Portier, head of the CDC's National Center for Environmental Health, said it reflects a change in emphasis to one of prevention.

Ted Jackson, The Times-PicayuneWorkers spread gravel and soil next to a mosaic laid down near the park's sign post, part of lead remediation work in February 2011.

But even as the CDC is setting stricter standards for exposure, federal money for lead-related health programs is being cut drastically, from $29.2 million to $2 million. For New Orleans, that means losing the $176,000 it receives from the CDC for case management.

That's a shame. High levels of lead have been linked to brain damage, mental retardation, developmental delays and behavior problems, as well as anemia, kidney and liver damage and hearing loss. Tulane University toxicologist Howard Mielke has published research showing a link between childhood lead exposure and an increase in aggravated assaults.

The new standards mean that 450,000 children nationwide have levels of lead in their bloodstream that are now considered unsafe, compared to 250,000 under the old standard.

But lead exposure is even more pressing for cities like New Orleans, where older housing stock is more likely to have lead-based paint that can get into the soil. According to Mr. Mielke, 42.1 percent of New Orleans children in a citywide database of 55,551 are now considered to be at risk, compared to 12.7 percent under the old standard. In some areas of the city 58.5 percent are at risk, he said.

Dr. Karen DeSalvo, New Orleans' health commissioner, called the decision to lower the threshold "a scientific step in the right direction.'' Certainly it's significant that the federal government recognizes the threat posed by lead. In fact, Mr. Portier said that no lead level is considered safe in young children.

But delineating the threat isn't the same as addressing it. The problem is now much bigger, but the amount of money for programs is much smaller. That's a disconnect, and public health officials need to press for a more vigorous response.